PDA

View Full Version : Why did you start BB?


Rage
12-10-2004, 18:37
.....

BengDogg
12-10-2004, 18:59
Tight top for me lol!

GoldenArrow
12-10-2004, 19:00
Initially to get stronger for wrestling. Now as a thing in its own right..

Rage
12-10-2004, 19:00
same as mate (tight top) <buff>

Mike
12-10-2004, 23:57
Firstly BBing is for wimps. I voted to get freakishly strong, of course.

Knighty
13-10-2004, 06:50
Firstly BBing is for wimps. .

why?

Robert
13-10-2004, 12:23
Its the law, know the law.

Knighty
13-10-2004, 14:28
then I suppose I am a wimp because I have set myself a long-term target to enter the bodybuilding competition at some point (something along the lines of one to two years after being back to full fitness)

M5
13-10-2004, 15:06
World then I suppose I am a wimp because I have set myself a long-term target to enter a bodybuilding competition at some point (something along the lines of one to two years after being back to full fitness)
Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Maybe you can find yourself a nice support group for misguided aspiring bodybuilders. Don't worry, you'll soon be listening to death-metal and refusing to use dumbbells that don't consist of at least 30% rust just like all real powerlifters.

M5

Knighty
13-10-2004, 15:12
Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Maybe you can find yourself a nice support group for misguided aspiring bodybuilders. Don't worry, you'll soon be listening to death-metal and refusing to use dumbbells that don't consist of at least 30% rust just like all real powerlifters.

M5

that's very funny! :038: :019:

Now go and seek out your flame covered beanie

Knighty
13-10-2004, 15:15
On a serious note, I would rather look at lifting as a means to an end rather than the be all and end all

M5
13-10-2004, 15:21
:042:

Robert
13-10-2004, 15:47
Death metal is for whimps.

Mike
13-10-2004, 15:50
why?

I think BBing is very superficial, I dont like the fact that you are judged on how you look.
BBer's are weak as sh1t, if they were as strong as they are big, they could move mountains.
Every BBer I know is an arrogant pr1ck how thinks he is all that, which is not true.
Every BBer I know is a puffy faced roid head, I dont respect steroid use and am not up for discussing it.

I mean no offense Knighty, I respect your decision as of course not all BBers are any of the above, but that said I have not met such people who do not fall into the above, untill I do...

Knighty
13-10-2004, 15:54
I think BBing is very superficial, I dont like the fact that you are judged on how you look.
BBer's are weak as sh1t, if they were as strong as they are big, they could move mountains.
Every BBer I know is an arrogant pr1ck how thinks he is all that, which is not true.
Every BBer I know is a puffy faced roid head, I dont respect steroid use and am not up for discussing it.

I mean no offense Knighty, I respect your decision as of course not all BBers are any of the above, but that said I have not met such people who do not fall into the above, untill I do...

:023: <buff>

Mike
13-10-2004, 15:58
Good luck dude.

Rage
13-10-2004, 18:28
That's bullshit Mike! As a very general rule of thumb... the bigger you are(muscle wise), the more weight you can shift.

And as for roid's- I won't touch 'em!

Robert
13-10-2004, 18:30
The only hypertrophy that makes you stronger is myofribilar. Sarcoplasmic (that the majority of BBers muscle tissue is) doesn't do sh1t for your numbers. Though generally speaking your both right.

Mike
13-10-2004, 18:32
That's bullshit Mike! As a very general rule of thumb... the bigger you are(muscle wise), the more weight you can shift.

And as for roid's- I won't touch 'em!

Wrong,
Ronnie cant pull a 1000+ plus dead, Andy bolton can. At similar bf% Ronnie would be much bigger/muscular.
Bodybuilders and their fluff muscle hehe....

Mike
13-10-2004, 18:34
The only hypertrophy that makes you stronger is myofribilar. Sarcoplasmic (that the majority of BBers muscle tissue is) doesn't do sh1t for your numbers. Though generally speaking your both right.

How can we be both right? You've just said BBer's have sarcoplasmic muscle tissue and are weak.

Rage
13-10-2004, 18:53
If you read into what I said correctly it would be obvious to you that there are some exceptions! ;)

Mike
13-10-2004, 18:57
If you read into what I said correctly it would be obvious to you that there are some exceptions! ;)

Most of westside could lift more then ronnie, are they exceptions? Most pro strong men are stronger then ronnie are they exceptions too? Hossein Razazadeh could lift more then ronnie is he an exception? The list goes on...

You come across very hostile, is this intentional?

Robert
13-10-2004, 19:21
How can we be both right? You've just said BBer's have sarcoplasmic muscle tissue and are weak.

Mike you chump.

You are both right. A bber no matter how gay or silly, will never get soley sarco hypertrophy, but that will be the primary type. Hence, Rage is right to say that bigger=stronger, but you are also right in that they are all weak teddy bears compared to stregth athletes of comparable size.

Rage
13-10-2004, 19:26
...and you come across as being a stereotypical powerlifter!

If you could stop being so narrow minded for once, and take a look at the bigger picture....

So who's stronger;

David Beckham or Arnold Schwarzenegger .....

Nuff Said :023:

Mike
13-10-2004, 19:27
Mike you chump.

You are both right. A bber no matter how gay or silly, will never get soley sarco hypertrophy, but that will be the primary type. Hence, Rage is right to say that bigger=stronger, but you are also right in that they are all weak teddy bears compared to stregth athletes of comparable size.

Rage did not specify that he was comparing bber for bber. Size DOES NOT equal strength. I have given examples of this already.

In case things aren't clear (in general) BIGGER ISN'T STRONGER.

Edit: Even if rage was comparing bber for bber then measuring maximal/optimal growth would be very difficult and I would be surprised to find that the biggest is the stongest. Franco Columbo was meant to be very strong but was not the biggest.

Mike
13-10-2004, 19:36
...and you come across as being a stereotypical powerlifter!

If you could stop being so narrow minded for once, and take a look at the bigger picture....

So who's stronger;

David Beckham or Arnold Schwarzenegger .....

In reply to the first line of the quote: Thank you.

Narrow minded, no. Honest, yes..

Beckham and schwarzenegger are a crap comparison. I have given examples already to which you had no reply.

You admit to hostility, stop it.

Rage
13-10-2004, 19:43
You not only come across as a stereotypical powerlifter, but a prejudice aswell!

And I think those are fair examples when you have been comparing someone who trains primarily for strength, to someone who trains primarily for size!!!

Compare two normal untrained average Joe's... The one with bigger muscle will almost always be stronger.

Point proven- I think it is time for you to accept defeat ;) :020:

Matt Jones
13-10-2004, 20:16
All "theory" aside , In all the years I have been spending time in gyms I must conclude that strength & size go hand in hand 95% of the time

It is only very rarely I have ever seen a large (muscular) man who has turned out to be not very strong - or a not so muscular guy that turns out to be hugely powerful - of course there will be the odd freak of nature
Maybe its just the gyms I go to ...

BengDogg
13-10-2004, 20:38
Im inclined to agree with you Matt, i have seen odd exceptions, quite often the muscular people with big bench but poor squat dead, is cos they may look good in the tight top, but underneath those track suit bottoms lies chicken legs. The most neglected area of all

Black Knight
13-10-2004, 20:55
I believe it is generally accepted that Olympic lifters are the strongest athletes as a group. Some of them lift enormous weights at very modest bodyweights. I believe there is a video clip of Naim Suleymanoglu squatting 265kg at a bodyweight of around 65kg. There are many other similar examples if you care to look for them.
In his fantastic book 'The Weightlifting Encyclopedia'. Art Drechsler explains the difference between muscuar size, strength and power and concludes that the strongest men are Olympic lifters.

Rage
13-10-2004, 21:06
....BUT we are not comparing bodybuilders to powerlifters here. We are comparing people from the same catagories otherwise there's obviously going to be differences as we all train for different things.

I'm sure if you compare two power/olympic lifters, the same rule applies. The person with the bigger muscles will generally be stronger....

Matt Jones
13-10-2004, 21:18
Im inclined to agree with you Matt, i have seen odd exceptions, quite often the muscular people with big bench but poor squat dead, is cos they may look good in the tight top, but underneath those track suit bottoms lies chicken legs. The most neglected area of all


Yeah I agree
The worst ones are the ones that NEVER train legs - then in summer when their girlfreind is drooling over my legs they whine "I just can't get my legs to grow - I've tried everything "

er ... no you haven't - try training them you lazy fool!

Rage
13-10-2004, 21:47
Whilst on the subject of legs... I'm not very tall (5'7'') so I think if I train my leg's too much they will look stupid. My jeans are already skin tight around the thigh and my ass is starting to look huge (more muscle!).

I don't even train the calves anymore-I think they're too big already!

...has anyone else seen a short(ish) guy with huge calves.. It looks stupid IMO! (not something a gril would drool over!)

BengDogg
13-10-2004, 22:43
My legs are a lil bit dispropotrtionate and im pretty tall, i like the look personally, chest and bi's is so cliche imo, Get some big legs and a strong back. Obviously if you bb maybe you want abit more symetry but leg training is what produces the most stimulus for you whole body to grow.

Mike
14-10-2004, 13:39
....BUT we are not comparing bodybuilders to powerlifters here. We are comparing people from the same catagories otherwise there's obviously going to be differences as we all train for different things.


We ARE comparing bbers to everyone. This is my response to Knighty:

"BBer's are weak as sh1t, if they were as strong as they are big, they could move mountains".

How does this compare one bber to another? You made that part up yourself to try and justify your comments and a few other members have also done so because of your misunderstanding. I have given examples already I stick by them, and black knight has also stated the superiority of oly lifters.

My experiences are obviously different to yours. I know a bber how competes regionally at my gym who has 19" arms and db curls 22.5kg. I curl more yet my arms are inches smaller. I coulod give many other examples....but I have said my piece and if this post has not shed any more light on the matter then we will agree to disagree.

Mike
14-10-2004, 13:54
Mike you chump.

You are both right. A bber no matter how gay or silly, will never get soley sarco hypertrophy, but that will be the primary type. Hence, Rage is right to say that bigger=stronger, but you are also right in that they are all weak teddy bears compared to stregth athletes of comparable size.

I didnt imply bbers have just sarco hypertrophy. Yes they are weak compared to PL and Oly lifter that's my whole point...

Mike
14-10-2004, 13:59
Whilst on the subject of legs... I'm not very tall (5'7'') so I think if I train my leg's too much they will look stupid. My jeans are already skin tight around the thigh and my ass is starting to look huge (more muscle!).

I don't even train the calves anymore-I think they're too big already!

...has anyone else seen a short(ish) guy with huge calves.. It looks stupid IMO! (not something a gril would drool over!)

LMAO. Now who is sterio-typical!

I have the utmost respect for natural bbers, bbing is hard work and is commendable. Rage if you read my response to Knighty you would have realised that my attitude is this way because of very bad experiences with bbers. Natural bber are few and far between, so it's unlikely I will meet one to change my mind.

Rage
14-10-2004, 17:49
That is not stereo typical...it just happens to be a fact that my legs are ridiculously strong/big.

If I continued to train them they would appear out of proportion IMO

Mike
14-10-2004, 18:58
That is not stereo typical...it just happens to be a fact that my legs are ridiculously strong/big.

If I continued to train them they would appear out of proportion IMO

That's not what I meant, you say you dont like your big ass, that's very steriotypical of bodybuilders and also the fact that you care if girls will drool over you. My ass is massive and I'm not bothered at all, I prefer it. You should wear your clothes, dont let them wear you.

Rage
14-10-2004, 19:07
ahhh, I see- Fair comment!

I am a natural (wannabe)bodybuilder btw... would never consider roids or similar.

Mike
14-10-2004, 19:12
Dont stop training legs. I believe my upper body development has suffered lately because of not squatting/deadlifting.

Rage
14-10-2004, 19:18
I don't think i'll stop, just buy new jeans lol. Although i'm not training calves as they're not a lagging part.

*calfs* :043:

Mike
14-10-2004, 19:19
I don't think i'll stop, just buy new jeans lol. Although i'm not training calves as they're not a lagging part.

I dont train calfs either.